Its not that the values of West and USA determines what takes humanity forward.The forward march of humanity is seen if the values of peace, freedom, equality, fraternity (in short Democracy) are preserved or enhanced.

Coz these values are cherised by a great majorit of mankind.

Only by those of us who are content with our general lives, that we can feed our family and we can walk down the street safely. In countries where they suffer from hunger and poverty, they couldn't give two shits about being able to go and vote. Sadly today, that is the majority of mankind.

Coz these values are taking our economies forward.

Says who? Why is it the western economies are the ones doing best compared to former colonies like Africa? Because they were exploited and still are exploited as thouroghly as possible. Democracy has fuck all to do about it. Look at China. They are a totalitarian dictatorship, yet they are becoming the biggest economy in the world and the standard of living is increasing more and more. Sure, there are a lot of poverty struck people, but China is fast becoming too expensive to be a production country due to the wages and overall standard of living rising.

Coz they give us equal rights to debate & discuss, disagree and still tolerate each other in a social system.

A totalitarian regime and freedom of speech aren't exclusive. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you have the right to vote.

Coz these values prohibit us to cut dead enemies head.

The values of democracy does not prohibit us to cut enemies dead. If that was the case then a true democracy, as well as it's people, would just sit still and watch as an invading force marches in. Try advocating people to put their weapons down once a foreign army invades your country. Good luck...

Coz these values allow us to be either belivers or non believers in any faith and still be equal.

Still possible without a democracy. All you need is freedom of religion. And rest assured, that in the US although certain religious beliefs are equal on paper, they're not in practice when it comes to the mob. It's human nature, People get denied jobs simply because of their name being Mohammed. Is that equality?

Coz these values respect our disagreements as much as agreements.

Tribal councils in Afghanistan where they have no democracy or ostrochise people not being part of their religion usually offers more sensible debates based on reason than the ones you see here on Lush or any other fora.

These values of yours can't be pushed on other people from the west or any other direction, it has to come from within, otherwise those that hold the power will have no problem branding the ideas as propaganda from their enemies that has no other plan than to destabilize the country. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. They are plunging into inefficient leadership that isn't condoned by the people, simply because it's easy to fire up the masses that the current power holders are "Allies and puppets of the warmongers in the west".

One thing that researchers found out about homosexuality is that the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to become gay. That it's in their nature can't be denied, but it also shows that enviroment and how you grow up will also play a big part of how you turn out, even in your sexual preference. Maybe there's a "gay gene" or a gene that decides what gender you feel an attraction to, and that in some cases this gene tilts to guys, sometimes to girls and sometimes to both. Considering the massive amount of data that is found in our DNA it wouldn't be considered likely.

And being gay is quite natural. Humans are the species on Earth that has the least amount of gay in it(it's 2:30 AM, be nice to my choice of language). Even saw on discovery channel a species of lizards that had no males. The females "mated" like they would if there was a male, but that was just to stimulate the female to fertilize her own eggs. Add to the fact that the male chromosone is much smaller than it was 10 000 years ago then we'll be looking at a single gender species in the future if it keeps going in this direction. Although how women will cope when they can't blame us men for anything anymore is a different matter

I believe the phrase freedom fighter should not be linked with what they are fighting for.But what objective they are out to defend is vital. Let me explain.Mujahideen fighting to win back a conservative backward looking Afghanistan can not be termed as freedom fighters as they are not defending FREEDOM.FREEDOM FIGHTER TO ME IS ONE WHO IS FIGHTING FOR TAKING HUMANITY FORWARD AND NOT BACKWARD.Defence of so called motherland which is intended to take humanity back in hstory can not be termed as FREEDOM FIGHTER.Freedom fighters should be associated with struggle to take human beings away from want, misery and from war.

So who is to decide what brings humanity forth and not back? The US? Is it so that every ideology that wants to bring in the Western values and democracy is the "right" one? Who are we to say what brings prosperity to a certain country? Democracy seems to be the better pick for us here in the west, but what right do we have to choose what type of rule they should have in Afghanistan, Iraq and any other state? That type of know it all arrogance is what has caused more shit in this world than any other ideology. This so called "good intentions"(as long as we agree that they are good intentions) have made many a highway to hell. Latest ones have been Iraq and Afghanistan.

The difference between terrorists and freedom fighters are as have been stated that a freedom fighter will go for military targets, while terrorists will go for civilian targets. This means that armies can be terrorists too. What is considered one of the first real terrorists attacks was after all the British bombing of Copenhagen in 1812(cba to look up the right year, but somewhere around that. At least during the Napoleonic wars). The way the Allies and the Axis decided to systematically bomb cities and civilians is by this definition also terrorism.

Ms chef, thats for the investigators to decide, and the courts to adjudicate

I think it was here in Norway that the courts decided that simply having an IP adress isn't enough to get a conviction, because it doesn't exclude anyone. In a house with 3-4 computers any one of those computers may have been used and any one in the house may have been the one doing it. Secondly, you have what chef said, what if someone just comes in and nicks your wi fi for 10 minutes and then buggers off again? Should you be the one charged? If it's going to be done for this, then maybe they should charge you as well for neglicence since you left your wi fi open. Internet cafes? Should they be required to keep logs and ID checks as well as video surveilance of those using public comps?

If you wanna charge people based on IP then you're fucking up their entire judicial security and the right to fair trial, because it won't be fair.

I hope writing all that out proved cathartic in some way. You say you're in desperate need of advice but I think it's more likely that you're in desperate need of someone to listen to you.

I wish I had your phsyc analysis skills. I bow down to your ability to read people and see right through them, knowing what they want even when they don't know it.

You have to remember where you are. Essentially, Lush is a masturbatory aid. We may try to delude ourselves and each other with discussions about art, politics and creative writing but basically we're a bunch of wankers. This is just to give you an understanding of any advice you get here. You also have to be aware that there's quite a lot of brainwrong going on around here already.

I think we just found our new official spokesman for Lush, someone who seems to know the mindset and motivation of most if not every member here. I think you could go in on some sort of customers relations here on Lush, because you seem to know every member and our motivation for being here....

I read an article today about the causes of terrorism, specifically Islamic Suicide Terrorism. After Bush justified carpet-bombing two countries by saying, among other nonsense, that Muslim Terrorists "hate our freedom", the pentagon launched a study to find the root cause of Islamic terrorism, and they found that- surprise, sur-f***ing-prise- they aren't on a mission of death because we have First Amendment rights or can choose our own careers and spouses. They hate us for our policies, namely- military intervention and occupation .

I love how the US government decides what's best for cultures that they have proven to know jacks**t about. Is this what makes the US "exceptional"? As in, enacting policies that are exceptionally stupid, assuming that a major goal of policy should be to protect it's own citizens?

If your country is being occupied, and your religion is under military seige on several fronts- are you a freedom fighter by retaliating, even if the methods of retaliation are as despicable as anything we might imagine?

Bang on the money. History has proven that democracy or any other type of cannot be forced on any country or population. It has to come from within, either through revolution or reforms. One thing you see very often is that the most undemocratic countries are the ones that are deeply religious and with poor infrastructure. Democracy in Europe was unheard of before the Enlightenment Age where you got a more secularised population and philosophy.

To take Afghanistan as an example. The infrastructure is worse than shit. There are tribes and villages that are so cut off that they are still predominantly white, dating back from when Alexander the Great invaded, almost 2500 years ago. You have one road going North to South and one going East to West that are the only functional land routes for supplies for an army. Ice road truckers are like a Sunday trip in comparison.

People live so isolated that they don't really give a shit who rules in Kabul. Why? Because it doesn't affect them. A democratically elected president is no different from a dictorish Taliban. Democracy is the least of their concern, because they won't see or hear about it on a day to day basis. What they will see and hear is the Western soldiers and the drones. The thought of a foreign invader will piss them off, simply because they notice it, and no one likes seeing a foreign flag on a military uniform in their country.

If you're doing it in the locker room then it's all about luck. The more relaxed ones might not have a problem at all getting to know someone while they're showing off their cock and balls and wouldn't mind having the casual conversation while bending over and showing you their arsehole as they dry their toes. But the more insecure and maybe slightly homophobic ones could easily go "Oh my God, he's coming on to me!!!" in their head just from a simple Hello.

Considering that Norway isn't a place where strangers talk to each other unless it's a necessity, locker room chats would be extremely awkward if it was a stranger. Talking in the gym while you're running on the treadmill next to another dude is more acceptable. I guess you could say that the less compromising the situation and the person is at that moment, the less of a chance he has to start thinking "GAY GAY GAY GAY!!!!!" and then freak out.

But good on you for trying to be more social! (that be a bro hug, not a gay hug and not in the locker room either)

Ultimately, I think the contract is null since he did it for free--thus making it more an act of kindness than something negotiated and agreed upon. .

It doesn't really matter if you're paid for it or not, a contract is still a contract. It's something two parties agree upon and they both have signed. If we make a contract where it says that whenever I urinate on your favourite oak tree in your backyard I will have to get spanked 10 times on a bare bottom then that contract is valid, regardless of the fact that neither of us get any money out of it.

But in fairness he did get paid for doing it. He didn't have to pay child support(according to the agreement) so that is a finanicial benefit that he has gained from the agreement. Just becasue he doesn't get cold hard cash in hand straight away doesn't mean that there isn't a financial profit.

One thing is what kind of response did you give him as he was going down on you? Were you just laying there and not moving while he was doing it? It depends on how he experienced it as well. You say you love giving head, then I'm guessing it's because you can see he's getting turned on. Is that obvious when he gives oral to you? But you simply have to ask him. We can throw in a bunch of different theories that at work he accidentaly drank some oil that fucked up his taste buds and that now he's simply disgusted by the taste of pussy, so it could be all him. But maybe if you did what have already been suggested, that you TALK TO HIM, you'll find out...

To me the Irish bomb stepped on an important piece; the situation. I don't want to be a guy that takes a girls virginity in a back alley and then never see her again. For all we know, it might end in pain and discomfort and it will all be a really bad memory instead of what should be if not a pleasurable then at least a half decent memory. As a long term partner it's different, because then you have the chance to explore, evolve and experience on the way from newbies to becoming a sex godess :D

It's a very difficult question to answer, especially given the circumstances. And to me it does raise a couple of questions. Was she in a bad spot when all this happened, like prostitution/porn being the only way to actually get by? To me that is something I could live with, knowing that we humans are survivalist and we're willing to do a lot to get through, even giving up our bodies.

I'm not gonna lie and say I'm judgemental free(even if I try to be). If this is something that's brought up on the first date then of course it will colour my vision of her and it's more prone to be in the back of my head and put my guard up. If it's after a few months and we actually have a good connection I'm probably more capable of getting past it, but this is given that she at some point comes clean and tells me. I know I would have flipped out if we'd been in a relationship for so long that it's really serious and I some day find out on my own by browsing porn or hearing it from someone that you should check redtube and you'll see your girlfriend. I am a firm believer in that trust is a necessity to make a relationship work, and if there is none there can be no relationship, so keeping stuff like that from me makes me wonder what else she keeps from me and does she really trust me at all. To me that would be the biggest issue. After all, if she doesn't trust me 100% then she can't be the one...

I was sure this post was from someone else I 'remember', but then saw a differrent name on it.. You GO girl! I'd been missing these types of questions.

I think the answer to the question might be something I mentioned a couple of days ago....

" Introducing the new Lego Space Shuttle Jumbo Size Butt plug complete with accessories..for your viewing pleasure.. This little mother will not only hurt like a bitch if you stand on it, but is guaranteed to BLOW your mind! and other things :-"

I don't think there is a direct correlation between number of cars on the road and deterioration of the roads, here is why. Cars are lighter,,, road are made of better materials.

No direct correlation? So you think that the only thing that wears down the roads is the weather and time? That cars have nothing at all to do with it? Because if there is no direct correlation then that means that you could drive a trillion cars over one piece of road and if it was in vacum it would be as good as new! Can you not see the flaw in your argument here?

Liberalism and Socialism are both mental disorders. First they tell us during the 1970's that we have hit PEAK OIL production, now we have more know reserves in the USA then ever. Newsweek warned of the coming ICE AGE, now we have global warming. Really, does it ever get old being so wrong so often about so much. In the USA we have food stamps, first started to keep the bottom feeders too stupid and lazy from starving, now we have 47.1 million Americans on foodstamps. This is an all time high.

Are you saying that the founding principles of the US is indeed a mental disorder?

Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles , but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.

Apart from the free trade, then at least the rest of these things are essential in the American Philosphy, no?

And Socialism that have bread to amongst others Social Democracy is now the governing political view in Germany(which is the only country in the EU that actually generates a + budget) as well as Norway(by many indexes rated as the best country in the world to live in, based on education, health, democracy and many other things). I guess a political platform where the result isn't that you're being run down in the gutter must clearly be a mental disorder...

The thing about pitbulls is that they are much more easily trained to becoming a killer dog than any other type of breed. They are highly capable of learning, and you don't need much skill to teach them how to kill on command. Some animals, like the German Shepard, can be considered vicious, but that's just because they're very protective of their owner and their owner's property. Unlike the pitbull it will only attack if it considers itself or it's owner(s) to be threatened, while a pitbull can be trained to be a virtual attack dog.

Of course, with a proper trainer then you can make a chiuahua an attack dog, it just takes a hell of a lot more time and skill to train it. That's why they're making certain types of dogs illegal. Basically giving someone a pitbull is like giving them a gun. All they need to know is how to push in a clip, take the safety off and pull the trigger.

Depends on what type of tattoo and where. If you get one that says "Get it here" and an arrow pointing to your pussy then it's trashy. Some of the tats above are a bit more tasty. What you also should consider is WHERE you put it. You might want to put it somewhere that can easily be concealed considering job interviews. Some might send you away just because of the tatoo, so consider that before you permanetly mark yourself.

How about putting tax on the petrol? Then you take those that actually spend a lot of fuel, and those spending a lot of fuel will also be the ones driving a lot. It will also be an initiative to get people to drive more environmental friendly cars. You pretty much get a win win situation. Sure, you'll piss off people that drive around in their 60's and 70's models, but those are show off cars. They're loud, they pollute and they are pretty much just old penis enhancers.

I'm going to indulge you and your rants with torpedoing your argument about why you should have CCP at schools and public places. That it will act as a deterrent is based on that you actually deal with REASONABLE people. Typical if you or me or someone else had the objective of killing as many people as possible then we'd target soft spots. It's logical. Problem is; most of these people ARE NOT REASONABLE! The fact that they usually take their own lives or go on until there is no way back other than them being killed means that they aren't acting rational. Actions that will cause your own death and it does not gain someone you're willing to die to protect or a greater community are defying our very basic instict of survival. Sure, we might not fear death per se or anything like that, but how many times have you seen rational human beings go do things that have a 100% death risk?

A second thing is that very often the target of choice is due to personal reasons. Columbine incident; the two gunmen went to school there. If I'm not mistaken this was the fact in the latest incident or at least there was a strong connection(correct me if I'm wrong). They go on a rampaging revenge suicide mission to make a statement, a last fuck you to the school they went to. There's nothing rational behind it. Taking innocent lives without any gain at all(unlike in a bank robbery) isn't rational at all. You can't set up things that will deter rational people from doing this and thinking it will work. At best you will have lowered the death ratio, something that an assault rifle gun ban does as well.

And I'm not an expert on your constitution, but does it say ANYWHERE that you have the right to own specifically the weapons that they now want to ban? They're not taking away your hunting rifle, are they? Or don't you consider that an "arm" because it can't really be used for other things than competition and/or hunting?

The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to stop the North from banning slavery by baring states from maintaining the armed slave patrols that were necessary to chase runaway slaves and put down the slave uprisings that happened quite frequently.

It was about maintaining slavery from start to finish.

My apologies. Of course I meant centuries. I put the blame on being a non-native English speaker. But you see my point.

Another problem the US has is it's view on the constitution and how it's unchangeable, despite the fact that it was written over two decades ago. Times change and laws get outdated. As was pointed out somewhere in one of the many threads about this Thomas Jefferson said that laws are only valid for a generation. If Norway was to have the same relationship to our constitution then we'd still be excluding Jews from our country. There needs to be a willingness to see that times have changed, thus the necessity for laws that were made to make sure that a young and newly established nation is not the same types that a well established democracy and military power needs.

I read it as " You just had sex, now a man who has bathed in pine sol wants to give you another sex, do you accept"

I don't know. Pine Sol smells pretty strong. How fresh is he? Is he substituting pine sol for real showers?

I'm more worried about the whole "give you another sex" part. You gonna agree to a sex change operation just straight after sex? "Hmmm, now that I've just had a dick in me, I wonder how it is to have a dick inside a pussy?"

From what I read of it, he says that the controls in the helicopter to be similar to the ones in the Apache. You know, push L stick to the left to guide the 30 mm cannon type of thing. Can't say where he says "Oh, killing the Taliban is pretty much the same as when I played CoD." Storm in a water glass.

As for Prince Phillip you just have to laugh. He once asked the mum of a man who had just swam the channel "Are there any more nutters in your family?"